Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV24463, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24463    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that she suffered bodily injury when a speaker fell and struck her while she was attending the LA Fashion Week show at the Petersen Auto Museum in October 2021. On January 23, 2025, Cross-Defendant LA Fashion Week served its first set of discovery requests on Plaintiff, which included Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

Plaintiff’s responses were due on February 25, 2025. Plaintiff failed to serve responses by the statutory deadline. However, after meeting and conferring, the parties agreed to extend the deadline to March 19, 2025, for Plaintiff to serve her responses without objections. On March 20, 2025, Cross-Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, only. To date, Plaintiff has not served any responses to the Special Interrogatories or Requests for Production, Set One.

Cross-Defendant now moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve initial responses to the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Set One. Cross-Defendant also moves to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Motion to Compel Initial Responses

Plaintiff did not file any opposition or any other document indicating to the Court that responses to Cross-Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, were served prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the motion to compel initial responses is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve complete and verified responses to Cross-Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses

At issue in Cross-Defendant’s motion to compel further responses are Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.2 through 8.8. Although the Personal Injury Hub typically requires parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference prior to hearing discovery motions, Cross-Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the responses but received no reply. Plaintiff also failed to file any opposition to the present motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that scheduling an Informal Discovery Conference would be futile given Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation and responsiveness. The motion to compel further responses is therefore properly before the Court and ready to be adjudicated.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.2 through 8.8 relate directly to Plaintiff’s allegations of wage loss. Plaintiff’s responses consist of the statement “will comply”.  This is not a code-compliant response. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires a party to respond to each interrogatory “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  The party must respond in good faith with all information reasonably available, even if the answer is incomplete or qualified. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) A responding party has a duty to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the requested information from all sources within its possession, custody, or control, including inquiry of others. (Id. at 782; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)

If Plaintiff possesses any responsive information at this time, it must be disclosed. To the extent additional information is obtained later, Plaintiff may supplement her responses. However, a promise to comply at some point in the future does not fulfill Plaintiff’s discovery obligations. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide code complaint further responses to the requests at issue without objections within 20 days of today.

Sanctions

Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification. Accordingly, sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,000 are imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant within 20 days of the date of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.